link to page 2 
November 3, 2021
Elections Grant Programs: Policy Options
Recent congressional activity on elections issues has often
Options for Legislative Proposals
featured grant programs. Congress responded to foreign
In addition to opposing federal elections grant programs in
interference in the 2016 elections and the effects of the
general, some might object to particular programs or
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on
funding on more specific grounds. They might note that
administration of the 2020 elections, in part, with funding
some of the funding previously appropriated for a given
for a grant program established by the Help America Vote
grant program has not been spent, for example, or oppose
Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252). Multiple bills
the goals the program aims to achieve.
introduced in the 117th Congress—from the Freedom to
Another critique of some grant programs is that, though
Vote Act (S. 2747) to the Protecting the Right to Organized,
their goals might be worthwhile, they are unlikely to
Transparent Elections through a Constitutionally
achieve them or likely to have other, unintended effects. To
Trustworthy Electoral College (PROTECT Electoral
identify or avoid that kind of concern, Members who are
College) Act (H.R. 4789/S. 519) to the House-reported
considering proposing or assessing grant programs or
Financial Services and General Government appropriations
funding might want to consider how they are structured.
bill (H.R. 4345)—would authorize, fund, or set conditions
for elections grant programs.
Choices about the structure of elections grant programs and
funding can help determine how effective they are at
This In Focus explores some issues that may be of interest
achieving their intended purposes and what, if any,
to Members who are considering offering, supporting,
unintended consequences they might have. Grant programs
opposing, or amending proposals to authorize, fund, or set
with shorter spending deadlines might be better suited to
conditions for elections grant programs. It starts by
encouraging prompt action on funded activities, for
summarizing some general arguments for and against
example, while longer (or no) deadlines might enable
federal elections grant programs then introduces some
grantees to undertake a wider range of projects or wait for
considerations that might be relevant for development or
relevant information or guidance before acting. Ongoing
assessment of particular programs or proposals.
funding might have all of the above effects but raise
Role of Federal Elections Grant
concerns for some about potential federal overreach.
Programs
Views on the appropriate scope of federal involvement in
A central debate in elections policy is over the role the
elections might also factor into choices about permissible
federal government should play in election administration.
uses of proposed grant funds. For example, Members might
States and localities have traditionally had primary
have preferences about exactly how grant funding is spent,
responsibility for administering elections in the United
an interest in allowing for flexibility in states’ or localities’
States, and opinions differ about the appropriate scope of
use of funds, or both. Depending on how they balance such
federal involvement in setting or implementing election
considerations, they might choose to limit funding to
administration policy.
specific activities or make it available for more general
purposes. They might also opt for a middle ground between
That debate has carried over to some discussions of federal
those choices, such as (1) making grant funds broadly
elections grant programs. Elections grant funding has been
available but prohibiting certain uses or (2) prioritizing use
described by some as federal overreach into a primarily
of funds for particular activities but permitting more general
state and local responsibility or a potential path to such
uses under certain circumstances.
overreach. Some have suggested, for example, that
elections grant programs could foster a state and local
Each of the above options—along with other questions
reliance on federal funds that could translate to outsized
about the structure of elections grant programs and options
federal influence on election administration policymaking.
for answering them—has been explored in previously
introduced or enacted legislation. Table 1 provides some
Others say that the federal government has a responsibility
illustrative examples of such structural questions and
to help cover the costs of conducting federal elections or to
answers in each of five categories.
advance certain objectives—such as ensuring that eligible
voters have access to the ballot or ineligible voters do not—
More detailed information about each set of questions and
and that grant programs offer a way to fulfill such
answers is available in CRS Report R46646, Election
responsibilities. Grant programs might be used to help
Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and
cover the costs of conducting federal elections. Congress
Localities, by Karen L. Shanton. Congressional clients may
could also use grant programs to encourage states to adopt
also contact the author of this In Focus for discussion of
policies that are aimed at advancing certain objectives or to
considerations relevant to specific legislative proposals.
help defray the costs of implementing policies it requires
them to adopt.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Elections Grant Programs: Policy Options
Table 1. Selected Policy Options for Elections Grant Programs and Funding
Category
Sample Questions
Sample Answers
Uses
Are grant funds limited to use for specific activities or
Specific activities (P.L. 116-136, Election Security Grants)
available for more general purposes?
General purposes (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)
Are grant funds intended to finance voluntary activities
Voluntary activities (52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053)
or help meet federal requirements?
Federal requirements (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
Are any uses of grant funds prohibited or prioritized?
Prohibited (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062)
Prioritized (117th Congress; H.R. 4345)
Amount
Is the total amount of federal funding authorized for the
Fixed amount (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906)
grant program a fixed amount, or is it such sums as may
be necessary to conduct the funded activities?
Such sums as may be necessary (52 U.S.C. §20311)
Are grant recipients required to contribute to funding
Match for funds received (P.L. 116-93, Elect. Sec. Grants)
grant activities?
Match for funds to be spent (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
How is funding allocated to grant recipients?
Nondiscretionary formula (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
Competitive grant process (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
Are eligible recipients guaranteed minimum—or subject
Minimum amounts (P.L. 115-141, Elect. Reform Program)
to maximum—award amounts?
Maximum amounts (P.L. 108-7, Elect. Ref. Progs.)
Recipients
Is grant funding available—directly or indirectly—to local Directly (52 U.S.C. §§21021-21025)
officials?
If state does not apply (115th Congress; H.R. 6663/S. 2593)
If authorized by state (115th Congress; S. 2261)
Via mandatory pass-throughs (117th Congress; H.R. 4345)
Is grant funding available to election officials or to other
Election officials (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
state or local entities?
Other entities (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062)
Which jurisdictions or entities are eligible for the grant
50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
program?
U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (52 U.S.C. §20981 note)
50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, USVI,
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and
American Indian consortium (116th Congress; H.R. 5510)
Availability
Are grant recipients required to obligate or spend grant
Option for extension (52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906)
funds or complete funded activities by a certain deadline? No option for extension (P.L. 116-136, Elect. Sec. Grants)
Are appropriations for the grant program authorized for
Limited number of fiscal years (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
a limited number of fiscal years or on an ongoing basis?
Ongoing basis (52 U.S.C. §§21061-21062)
Administration
Are details of grants administration specified in bil text,
Authorizing legislation (52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008)
specified in report language, or left to the discretion of
the agency charged with administering the program?
Appropriations legislation (P.L. 116-136, Elect. Sec. Grants)
Report language (P.L. 111-8, Cmte. print, Elect. Ref. Progs.)
Which agency is charged with administering the grant
Election Assistance Commission (52 U.S.C. §20981 note)
program?
Other federal agency (52 U.S.C. §20311)
Is the administering agency encouraged or required to
Other agencies (52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043)
col aborate or consult with other agencies or election
stakeholders?
Elections stakeholders (117th Congress; H.R. 5008/S. 2702)
Source: CRS, based on review of data from the U.S. Code and Congress.gov.
Notes: This table is intended to be il ustrative, not comprehensive. Each sample answer includes an example from bil text or report language.
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
Government
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Elections Grant Programs: Policy Options
IF11962
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11962 · VERSION 1 · NEW